People v. Sabino

• Citation: 215 Cal.App.2d 149,30 Cal.Rptr. 110
• Decision Date: 16 April 1963
• Docket Number: No. VJD,VJD
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Victor SABINO and Mary Sabino, Appellants. One 1961 Ford Falcon, License265, Defendant. Civ. 26607.
• Court: California Court of Appeals

Page 110

30 Cal.Rptr. 110

215 Cal.App.2d 149

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Victor SABINO and Mary Sabino, Appellants One 1961 Ford Falcon, License No. VJD 265, Defendant.

Civ. 26607.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

April 16, 1963.

Burton Marks, Beverly Hills, for appellants.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mario Roberti, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

JEFFERSON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment which forfeited an automobile to the State of California as to its registered co-owners, Victor and Mary Sabino, subject to a lien in favor of the legal owner, Automobile Club of Southern California.

Trial was by the court. The registered co-owners appeal. The facts are as follows:

During the early morning hours of September 18, 1961, officers Edward Brantley and Theodore Maurer of the sheriff's office of Los Angeles County were patrolling the Altadena area of Los Angeles County on a road called Chaney Trail. They observed an automobile parked with its lights off. They also observed a glow emanating from within the car which resembled that of a lighted cigarette. Because this was a fire area closed to smoking they stopped to investigate. Officer Brantley approached the vehicle on the dirver's side and the driver Joanne Sabino, rolled down her window. The officer testified he smelled an odor which resembled that of marijuana. He walked around to the other side of the car and asked the passenger, Connie Neumann, to step out of the car and made inquiry of her regarding her smoking and also the contents of a package of cigarettes she had in her hand. As he had approached the parked car he had noticed that Connie was leaning forward in the seat doing something with her hands. After repeated requests, she showed him the package. He discovered what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette in the package and placed her under arrest. Joanne Sabino was then questioned and the contents of her purse were searched. The officer found a brown paper bag in her purse which contained a substance resembling marijuana. She was then also placed under arrest.

All parties stipulated that the items mentioned were taken from the car; that they contained marijuana; that if a chemist were called he would so testify, and that there was a 'proper chain of evidence.'

Officer Brantley testified he had a conversation with Joanne after her arrest in which she stated she and Connie drove to downtown Los Angeles in the area of Seventh and Main streets. There, Connie left the car and purchased the marijuana from a person unknown to her. They then drove into the foothill area of Altadena and parked on Chaney Trail.

Officer Kipley testified he talked with Joanne in the county jail. She told him that at approximately 9:00 p. m. on September 17, 1961, she and Connie had driven to Los Angeles to go to a movie. As they were proceeding down the street they were approached by an unknown man who told them he had something to get rid of. He said, 'It is marijuana. Would you like to buy some?' They each contributed $5 to purchase the contents of a brown paper bag. They went back to the automobile and drove to Altadena. Joanne stated she had never smoked marijuana prior to this occasion, and was curious as to the effect it would have on her. She admitted she saw the radio car, became frightened and put the brown paper bag in her purse. She further related the car belonged to her father but that she had permission to use it any time she wanted.

Officer Kipley testified he also had a conversation with Connie. He statements were substantially the same as the statements made to him by Joanne. Connie related that she was examining the marijuana cigarette at the time the radio car approached and that she put it in the package of Parliament cigarettes.

At the trial Joanne testified she had never seen of smoked marijuana prior to her arrest; that a man just wanted to get rid of something and asked if she wanted to buy it. The man did not advise her she was purchasing marijuana but that she and Connie suspected it might be marijuana. Joanne also testified she had never smoked marijuana prior to the time they were arrested; that they had gone to the foothills with the intention to look at the substance in the bag; that Joanne's father did not give her permission to take the automobile for the purpose of transporting marijuana.

An objection was made by the defense to the introduction of the marijuana into evidence on the ground that it was acquired as the result of an unlawful search and seizure. The objection was overruled. A later motion to quash the evidence was also overruled.

It was stipulated at the trial that the automobile in question belonged to Victor and Mary Sabino, the parents of Joanne Sabin0; also, that Joanne could use the car with their permission whenever she wanted. Appellants made an attempt to introduce evidence that Joanne's parents had no knowledge their automobile would be used for an unlawful purpose. An objection by the People was sustained on the ground the evidence was irrelevant. After subsequent attempts by appellants to put on evidence showing lack of knowledge, it was stipulated that Joanne's parents had no knowledge the automobile would be used to carry narcotics. It was further stipulated the People objected to introduction of this evidence and that the objection was sustained by the court on the grounds of irrelevancy.

Appellants contend the search, the seizure of evidence, and the subsequent arrest of Connie and Joanne were unlawful because reasonable cause for search or arrest was lacking and therefore the evidence secured thereby was inadmissible. This contention is without merit.

Reasonable cuase is generally defined as a state of facts that would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and entertain an honest suspicion that a person is guilty of a crime. (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 412, 2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 348 P.2d 577.)

The question of whether an officer may stop to interrogate the occupants of a vehicle is a separate issue from whether there is a right to search and arrest the occupants. (People v. King, 175 Cal.App.2d 386, 390, 346 P.2d 235.)

As stated in ...